Interlocutory Appeal Does Not Stay Family Trial | Khurram v. Ahmed (2026)

Beenish Khurram v. Yasir Ahmed, 01-24-00577-CV, July 14, 2026.

On appeal from 257th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

In Khurram v. Ahmed, the First Court of Appeals held that in a suit governed by the Texas Family Code, filing a notice of interlocutory appeal does not stay the trial court’s proceedings and does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial and sign a final judgment. The court also held that a separately filed motion to stay creates no automatic suspension of proceedings absent affirmative action by the appellate court.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters directly to Texas divorce, SAPCR, custody, and property cases because family-law litigants often attempt to use interlocutory appellate filings, emergency motions, recusal efforts, sanctions disputes, and pretrial rulings to delay an imminent trial setting. Khurram confirms that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(b) cuts the other way in Family Code litigation: even assuming an interlocutory appeal is properly invoked, the trial court ordinarily retains authority to keep moving. For family-law trial lawyers, that means trial preparation cannot stop simply because the other side has filed a notice of appeal or a motion to stay in the court of appeals.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This case arose from a highly contested divorce filed in Harris County in 2021. The parties tried the case to a jury in June 2023, and while the jury found grounds for divorce, it deadlocked on conservatorship issues involving the parties’ children. The case therefore remained pending for further proceedings.

As the litigation continued, the trial court entered a series of consequential pretrial rulings against the wife, including an agreed criminal-contempt order, partial no-evidence summary judgments on several tort and fault-based claims, an order suspending possession for failure to comply with a court-ordered mental examination, and an order striking her live pleading and jury demand after repeated noncompliance with that exam order. The wife also sought recusal of the trial judge, but the motion was denied by the regional presiding judge.

The case was reset for a bench trial on August 13, 2024. Although the record reflected actual notice of the trial setting, the wife did not appear. Before trial, she had filed notices of appeal directed at several interlocutory rulings and had also filed a motion in the court of appeals seeking a stay of trial-court proceedings. The court of appeals denied the stay request. The trial court proceeded to trial and later signed a final divorce decree on September 13, 2024.

On appeal from that final decree, the wife argued, among other things, that her interlocutory appeal notices divested the trial court of jurisdiction, that her motion to stay automatically suspended proceedings until ruled upon, and that the final decree should be reversed on those grounds.

Issues Decided

The court decided the following issues:

• Whether filing a notice of interlocutory appeal in a Family Code case deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial and render a final judgment.
• Whether a motion to stay filed in the appellate court automatically stays trial-court proceedings unless and until the appellate court denies the motion.
• Whether the appellant had sufficient notice of the trial setting and whether proceeding in her absence violated due process.
• Whether an asserted conflict between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the written final decree required reversal.
• Whether evidentiary complaints could be reviewed in the absence of a reporter’s record from trial.
• Whether the appellant waived complaints about pretrial rulings limiting her affirmative claims by failing to appear for trial.

Rules Applied

The court’s analysis centered on a straightforward but significant statutory rule: under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(b), an interlocutory appeal does not stay the commencement of trial in a case brought under the Family Code. The court treated that provision as dispositive of the argument that the notice of appeal itself halted the case.

The court also relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10 for the proposition that the filing of a motion to stay does not itself create a temporary stay absent appellate-court action. While Rule 52.10 addresses stays in original proceedings, the court used it to reject the broader argument that a stay motion is self-executing.

Other rules and authorities applied by the court included:

• Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 245 and 246, concerning notice of trial settings.
• In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101, 119 (Tex. 2014), on due-process implications when a party receives no notice of trial.
• Ifiesimama v. Haile, 522 S.W.3d 675, 684 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied), for the rule that the written judgment controls over a conflicting oral pronouncement in civil cases.
• Smith v. Karanja, 546 S.W.3d 734, 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.), on the presumption that omitted portions of the reporter’s record support the judgment.
• Bradley Motors, Inc. v. Mackey, 878 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Tex. 1994), Love v. State Bar of Texas, 982 S.W.2d 939, 943 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.), and Walker v. Kleiman, 896 S.W.2d 413, 416 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ), on waiver resulting from a party’s failure to appear for trial after making an appearance.

Application

The court addressed the jurisdiction and stay arguments first, and it did so in a notably direct way. The appellant contended that once she filed notices of interlocutory appeal from several pretrial rulings, the trial court lost jurisdiction to go forward. The First Court assumed, without deciding, that some interlocutory appellate path might have existed as to the identified orders. Even with that assumption, the argument failed because section 51.014(b) expressly provides that trial is not stayed in Family Code suits. In other words, even a properly filed interlocutory appeal does not operate in family-law litigation the way litigants often expect it to operate in other civil contexts.

The same logic disposed of the appellant’s stay-motion argument. After filing notices of appeal, she asked the court of appeals to stay the trial-court proceedings. But the court denied the request, and more importantly, it rejected the premise that a stay motion creates an interim freeze while the appellate court considers it. The court emphasized that a stay requires appellate action; it is not self-effectuating upon filing.

On the notice issue, the appellate record showed the appellant had actual notice of the August 2024 trial setting. The withdrawal order signed in April reflected notice of the then-existing trial setting, and the August 13 reset was discussed in a later pretrial hearing she attended. Because the record affirmatively demonstrated notice, the due-process challenge failed.

The court then turned to the appellant’s remaining attacks on the final decree and pretrial rulings. The claimed inconsistency between the oral rendition and the written decree did not warrant reversal because the written judgment controls. The evidentiary complaints failed because the appellant did not provide the reporter’s record from the trial itself, requiring the appellate court to presume the omitted evidence supported the decree. And her complaints about summary judgments, pleading-strike sanctions, and related discovery matters were held waived because she had notice of trial, made a general appearance, and then failed to attend trial to present any affirmative claims.

Holding

The court held that in a Family Code case, the filing of a notice of interlocutory appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction and does not stay trial-court proceedings. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(b), the trial court remained free to conduct trial and sign the final divorce decree notwithstanding the pending interlocutory appellate filings.

The court further held that the filing of a motion to stay in the appellate court does not automatically suspend proceedings pending the appellate court’s ruling. Absent an order granting temporary relief or a stay, the trial court may continue to act.

The court also held that the appellant received adequate notice of the trial setting, so proceeding in her absence did not violate due process. Her challenge based on a conflict between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and written decree failed because the written judgment controlled.

Finally, the court held that the appellant’s evidentiary complaints could not succeed without the relevant reporter’s record and that her failure to appear for trial waived complaints that the trial court had improperly limited the claims she could present.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Khurram is most useful as a calendar-control and trial-readiness case. If opposing counsel files a notice of interlocutory appeal from a recusal ruling, sanctions order, temporary order, mental-exam order, or summary-judgment ruling and then insists the trial setting is automatically suspended, this opinion gives you a direct answer: not in a Family Code case, and not without an actual stay order.

The case also has practical force in emergency settings. A litigant may file a last-minute motion to stay in the court of appeals and then tell the trial court that prudence requires standing down until the appellate court acts. Khurram rejects that position. Unless the appellate court grants relief, the case remains active. Trial lawyers should therefore continue subpoena practice, exhibit preparation, witness coordination, and trial presentation unless and until a stay order is signed.

The opinion also underscores a second, equally important point: appellate maneuvering does not cure trial-level nonappearance. A party with actual notice who elects not to attend trial because she believes appellate filings have frozen the case does so at substantial risk. That risk includes waiver of affirmative claims, inability to develop a trial record, and near-certain affirmance of evidentiary complaints if the reporter’s record is not secured.

In day-to-day family litigation, the decision is especially relevant in these scenarios:

• Divorce cases with overlapping sanctions, summary-judgment rulings, and recusal disputes on the eve of trial.
• SAPCR modification suits where one side seeks emergency appellate relief and assumes the merits hearing cannot proceed.
• Property-heavy divorce litigation in which a party attempts to use interlocutory filings to postpone valuation, tracing, or reimbursement evidence.
• Cases involving mental examinations, discovery abuse, or pleading-strike sanctions where a noncompliant party attempts to convert pretrial setbacks into de facto continuances through appellate filings.

For the party seeking to proceed, Khurram supports a firm position that the court should move forward absent a signed stay. For the party seeking emergency appellate intervention, the lesson is equally clear: obtain actual relief, not just a filing stamp.

Checklists

When the Other Side Files an Interlocutory Appeal Before Trial

• Confirm whether the underlying case is governed by the Family Code.
• Analyze section 51.014(b) immediately and be prepared to cite it at the trial setting.
• Do not assume the notice of appeal divests the trial court of authority.
• Check the appellate docket for an actual stay order, not merely a filed motion.
• Prepare a short bench memo explaining that trial may proceed absent appellate-court action.
• Preserve the record by stating clearly that no stay order has issued.

When You Need a Stay in a Family Code Case

• Do not rely on the notice of appeal itself to halt proceedings.
• File the stay request promptly and with a developed factual showing of irreparable harm.
• Request emergency consideration if trial is imminent.
• Notify the trial court of the filing, but acknowledge that no stay exists unless granted.
• Continue trial preparation unless and until the appellate court signs an order.
• Have a backup plan if the stay is denied or not ruled on before trial.

Trial-Setting and Notice Preservation

• Document all notices of trial settings and resets in writing.
• If a trial date is discussed in open court, ensure the court reporter records it.
• If your client contends notice is defective, raise the objection immediately in the trial court.
• Do not wait to assert lack of notice for the first time on appeal.
• If counsel withdraws, confirm the withdrawal order recites the upcoming trial date and service information.

Protecting the Appellate Record

• Order the full reporter’s record for any evidentiary complaint you intend to raise.
• If budget issues exist, designate the critical portions and comply with appellate rules governing partial records.
• Ensure exhibits admitted or excluded at trial are identified and included where possible.
• Tie objections and offers of proof to specific record references.
• Remember that absent a necessary reporter’s record, the appellate court will presume the omitted evidence supports the judgment.

Avoiding Waiver by Nonappearance

• Advise the client expressly that appellate filings do not excuse attendance at trial.
• If the client believes a stay should issue, make clear that the safest course is still to appear unless relieved by court order.
• If emergency circumstances prevent appearance, seek continuance or other relief in the trial court immediately.
• Be prepared to present affirmative claims and defenses at the scheduled trial.
• Understand that failure to appear can waive jury-related and affirmative-relief complaints.

Using Khurram Strategically at Trial

• Bring a copy of section 51.014(b) and the opinion to hearings near trial.
• Frame the issue as one of statutory non-stay, not merely trial-court discretion.
• Distinguish between a filed request for relief and granted relief.
• Ask the court to make a clear record that no appellate stay order exists.
• If opposing counsel refuses to proceed, request that the case be called and the record reflect the nonappearance.

Citation

Khurram v. Ahmed, No. 01-24-00577-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 14, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~8f0bef0c-8977-4ec5-b7ee-de9e1433539c~~